#as with most inventions it is used for evil but it isn't inherently evil

[3cosmicfrogs]

not rb-ing the OG post because i don't want to.

On the case of the specific oppression experienced by trans men:

I think there's two arguments popping up on tumblr around the term 'misandry': 1) the discourse whether men, often marginalised men, are oppressed for being men, and 2) the awareness of how oppression operates differently for minority men vs women.

To discourse 1: misandry isn't real.

But I think, at least in the tumblr circles i'm exposed to, disourse 2 bleeds into discourse 1 and causes conflicting arguments and confusion. Because discourse 2 is tackling a different issue.

We all agree that gendered oppression that men experience is misogyny. However, what words do we use to describe the experience of marginalised men when this gender-specific misogyny intersects with their marginalisation, that still distinguishes itself from marginalisation in general?

I'll talk about trans men because that's what i have most experience with, plus that seems to be a frequent point of DiscourseTM on this website. The terms that we, within our own community, use to describe our gender-specific brand of oppression, are most often 'transmisandry', 'transandrophobia' and 'anti-transmasculinity'. Again, emphasis on this being a label by us and for us, not imposed upon us. Transmisogyny is the term used by trans women, so even though the oppression we face is misogynystic at its root, there is a need for us to distinguish ourselves from the specific oppression trans women face, because it's very different. And we can't just substitute anti-transmasculinity with 'transphobia' without loosing nuance in the process (the idea that somehow trans men are 'less' oppressed than trans women is a pretty common way transphobes silence transmasculine voices): We face unique discrimination not only for being trans, but specifically for being trans men. We are punished both for not being cis men, but crucially also for no longer being cis women.

While our oppression is misogyny at it's root, you have to make a few loops to get there. For example, let's pick apart the radfem rhetoric that trans men are 'gender traitors to feminism'. the logic is as follows: 'trans men are gender traitors and bad for feminism' -> trans men are 'women' who have made a (moral) mistake -> men/masculinity is inherently evil and women are inherently good -> women are good because women are biologically weak/soft/inferior = misogyny. As you can see, it's misogyny in disguise rather than 'direct' misogyny [that's really clumsy language, i hope you get my point].

So why not use 'anti-transmasculinity'? while I personally preferr it and believe it to be a better umbrella term, the word 'transmisandry' still gets the idea across well and brings the type of oppression experienced to the point. 'Transandrophobia' is similarly inclusive but personally i find it a bit milquetoast. Also the reason for its invention in because non-transmascs couldnt handle 'transmisandry'.

tl;dr Misandry in the strictest sense doesn't exist. I think having a distinct term that marginalised men may use to distinguish their experienced misogyny from those of marginalised women is valid, and if your chosen term includes the word 'misandry' then good for you! it gets the point across and does its job.

and if you are not a marginalised man, think long and hard about what right you have to tell us what we can and cannot call ourselves.

and in conclusion: if you use 'transmisandry' that's very sexy of you, keep on vibing, and explode transphobes who tell you otherwise with your mind.

[thydungeongal]

Hi, same anon obsessed with morality.

Okay, I admit that my ask was a bit too emotional because non-evil original roleplaying games exist even in sword and sorcery style (World of Dungeons and Oracle are some I would recommend), and existence of Gondal setting testifies that it's not a male thing in any way.

However, my probably naive concern goes a little further - I don't play D&D, but I use it for monsters and settings. It's hard to invent absolutely everything from a scratch, you know? But this leads to an ethical concern I have - doing this is still feeding into D&D hegemony and embracing Gygax's and Arneson's rotten legacy (though I am starting to think that Gygax was a lesser evil, holy fuck). And let's not fool ourselves here - derivative games like Pathfinder or Knave are still their legacy (though maybe Cairn isn't, I am not sure).

So like, what are options of games that are generic fantasy that have a lot of monsters and settings to steal and that are also both not "D&D but different" and aren't objectively evil?

I know literally a handful of candidates, so I am asking your followers to share. And no, Warhammer isn't such game.

What I remember is:

Fantasy Age is not without a sin, but it's presented as "you can depict these demi-humans as equal people or you can be a hitler, it's up to you", so progress I guess?

Jackals is built on OpenQuest and is pretty generic if you exclude it being about bronze age, but I remember some potentially creepy details of how it treats demi-humans

Blue Rose looks the most morally fine, but it's not exactly generic

Lightmaster is ugh, because it doesn't have inherently evil demi-humans, but it has inherently different demi-humans who are always savages, so it's a thin ice (though otherwise it's a blast)

D6 Fantasy doesn't really have monsters in core book, but there are probably third-party bestiaries that may even not be vile

GURPS does have bestiaries of fantasy creatures, but I don't know anything about their morality

IDK about rolemaster, but you said that it's not good.

So like, which extremely ethical non-OSR heartbreaker that was published ever am I missing? Should I look into Das Schwarze Auge, or does it suck the same way?

Ultimately I think you're thinking about this too much to your own detriment. It's good to be aware of the fact that lots of (especially older) fantasy stuff does carry some fucked up expectations and approach it with a critical eye so you don't end up replicating it, but if you become single-minded in your pursuit of the perfect, unproblematic fantasy RPG you're not only setting yourself up for disappointment but also denying yourself a lot of stuff that's good but flawed.

Anyway, not a game but a supplement for OSR games, but Skerples' Monster Overhaul is pretty good in this regard and does this via simply accepting the revolutionary paradigm of "orcs are just some guys."

Another game out of the left field, Chivalry & Sorcery is really surprising in this regard, because it's the sort of game that gives off vibes of being written by "the presence of women in a medieval setting is extremely inaccurate" types, but the authors actually make a point of saying that player enjoyment and comfort should always take precedence over adherence to historicity when it comes to issues like players wanting to play women or queer characters. But it's in its treatment of orcs and trolls (and as far as I've understood, dwarves and elves too, but I haven't read that supplement yet) where it gets really cooking. Chivalry & Sorcery is a game written by medieval history nerds and they wanted their game's worldbuilding to adhere to a medieval European paradigm. So when it came to adding orcs into the game the authors asked "how would orcs fit into the worldview of a medieval Christian?"

The answer is that just as medieval Christian philosophers mused that if cynocephali or those guys who only had one big foot were to exist then surely they must be just some guys, orcs would also have to be just some guys. This means that they would be human in terms of having been created by God and tracing descent to Adam and Eve and also could receive the eucharist and be saved.

Anyway, all of which is to say that the middle ages were woke,

[hypersanity]

Philosophy and Elitism - Comics https://www.reddit.com/r/DemonicsGamingDomain/comments/1ijkm9t/thinking_about_a_subscription_to_dc_infinite/

So I've been learning about kite man, who is one of my new favorite characters/archetypes - the cyclic pattern of always starting over - applying new information from failures to slowly overcome obstacles not faced by normal standards and experiences - reflects one of the methods I use to learn since memory's different (and memory and understanding are completely different and misunderstood).

And I happened upon a character I've literally never heard before - Animal Man.

Seems to have ties to swamp-thing, which makes sense that he's reminiscent of a druid - but in like a venom style where things aren't black and white but a spectrum of shades.

Vegan anti/hero? https://www.dcuniverseinfinite.com/comics/book/animal-man-2011-1/85ebe20d-c87a-4cdc-bf15-65d1b3de400b/story-animalman-the-hunt-books

"Evolve or die" - actually an activist superhero that understands there are no heroes without a world to live in. By standards today this would be seen as "radical", when in actuality, it's being ethically consistent in ones abilities and choices that can be entirely avoided - but chosen NOT to.

About holding YOURSELF accountable in actions that lead to a global effect and collectively, instead of waiting for a point of no return.

---

"The believer": Here points out he's (Animal Man) an auto-didact who's not satisfied with just doing one thing and sticking to it like everyone else.

Philosophy

Something that I find hilarious and intentionally ignorant as fuck, is that people say philosophy isn't good for anything, not for music/ movies etc.

But without philosophy, there's nothing compelling - without philosophy, there's no imagination, no philosophic archetypes like kite man/animal man/venom/magneto and many others archetypes that use philosophy to add depth.

Otherwise everything would be grey without philosophy, archetypes strictly confined to pre-determined "forms" of philosophy.

Elitism and narcissism make an intersection when someone says that "oh this belongs to author x" - philosophy is a human invention, someone doesn't have to read x amount of books or specific books to learn philosophy.

One doesn't need to have a degree - this is ultimately reminiscent of a fascist.

The first people to invent philosophy - didn't have books to create new forms of it.

Many philosophies borrow from others to create a new one.

A philosophy itself isn't inherently good/evil (minus exceptions for those literally designed as such) - but in how someone uses it.

The worst kind of malignant narcissists say, "you have to purchase x amount of something to be x".

You don't have to read books about philosophy to learn about it, you can learn from archetypes, mythology, experiential experiences or wiki.

No-one starts learning at the same periods, no-one starts on the same resource -

Saying you have to understand philosophy by solely reading specific books, is the most un-human way to approach something.

The best movies and comics use philosophy, if you say otherwise, you're not actually proving it - you're just asserting your belief, despite not actually being interested enough in philosophy to engage in a way that's not just parroting the most famous philosophers and saying it's not.

Because that would be malignant elitist narcissism that aligns with any society that hates learning and doing so in a way that's fun. "just read books and never have fun, OR learn", as having fun is paramount to learning and assuming everyone learns the same way is literally fascistic gate-keeping. Grifters say buy my book that teaches you everything while stealing a phrase from another author- despite not fighting climate change due to "aliens" - DeGrasse Tyson. Oh, so you only believe in an education for people who can buy books, and methods not possible/conducive to their learning. - Which ties into anti-AI hysteria and disinformation - TBD.

[elbiotipo]

I'm not somebody whose fully for AI myself, but it is nice to see a perspective that's different from a lot of the anti-ai statements. Not that those don't have a point, but the stuff that's being done with AI is technically impressive, and I think that's something that should be acknowledged. I just hope it's used in a way that doesn't hurt the people working on and producing their own media.

From my perspective, AI is a thing that exists. I think ranting against it as if it's evil or if it will somehow go away is pointless, because it is here. So instead of just rejecting to the point of sounding rabid (seriously, the things that people say on Twitter are really unhinged, I've seen people threatening violence), why not have a discussion about it's uses and (HERESY) perhaps its positive impact?

AI was invented in the context of the current dominance of Silicon Valley capitalism, but it does not mean that the technology itself can only be used for that. I could list all the uses of AI for science, for example, but even for art, people are already trying out generative AI without the "customer service" guidelines ChatGPT and others have, and the outputs can be very interesting, because it's people trying to see what they can get out of a new tool. Like modders for a videogame, or music remixers, and so on.

I really think people should calm down a little, or at least focus on the real bad stuff that is that most AI research and services are in the hands and for the purposes of big corporations. But as a technology, it's not inherently evil, and as a tool for art (HERESY!!!!!) it isn't, either.

[lasats-are-lovely]

I've seen a lot of posts (or. at least numerous variations of that one post) talking about how the radicalization of young men is the fault of leftists for alienating them and demonizing them, and how it is the responsibility of women/gay people to do better to make a place for them in our spaces so they don't fall into the trap of far-right indoctrination.

And... okay. I can agree that there is very few leftist/liberal spaces that are catered to cishet men to talk about anti-facist/patriarchal issues that pertain to them -- most spaces are made by and for either women and/or gay people and would be unrelatable to a cishet man (or potentially "uncomfortable" for them if what is only being discussed is violence committed by cishet men against members of that community). I also can also kind of agree that divisive language used in our communities is at best unhelpful and at worst antagonistic (and that isn't to say that I agree with efforts to tone police people in our spaces. We have every right to be angry, we have every right to be untrusting, we do not need to be nice to people who have hurt us. But unironically spewing bioessentialist talking points about the "inherent evil" of men isn't going to end the patriarchy, it only feeds into defeatism and deters us from holding our oppressors responsible for things they can fully change.)

To some degree (if I squint and tilt my head) I can see the logic behind not finding community with leftists and as a result going somewhere where there is "community" for them with far-right groups, especially when this radicalization is happening to impressionable children.

I stop seeing the logic when the blame for the lack of these spaces is pinned on us.

Our pre-existing communities weren't made for us by someone else - WE made them OURSELVES. There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of spaces in our communities that didn't just pop up overnight - they were born from people who felt that their immediate concerns and needs weren't being addressed in a way that felt adequate so they made communities for themselves and people like them to have the support they need to talk about their issues.

We put in the work to make these spaces what they are, there isn't just one big "woman" community or "gay" community that has always existed since women and gays were invented by woke that we all have membership cards to like it's Woke Costco™ with secret monthly woke meetings in the secret clubhouse with a big "no stinky cishet boys allowed >:(" sign out front. It's thousands of groups supporting each other one on one in countless different unofficial and unorganized ways, whether it be mutual aid groups, therapy groups, discord servers, even things as simple as irl friend groups meeting up once a month just to talk and make sure each other is okay.

What exactly is stopping cishet men from doing this for themselves like we have? What's stopping them from getting together once a month with their guy friends to talk about mental health and providing resources in a way that's catered for them and meets their specific needs, since men's mental health is something they talk so passionately about? What's stopping them from making discord servers to talk to each other about issues, whether it be to vent in a safe environment, talk about events in their area where they can make their voices heard, or even something as simple as playing online games together in private lobbies with their friends/younger brothers/sons without the toxic player base that tends to radicalize a lot of younger men in these environments? What's stopping them from reaching out to each other and providing support in healthy and meaningful ways instead of continuing the cycle of apathy and division that seems far too prevalent in male social groups?

What is stopping them -- other than the inherent expectation that someone else is going to be there to do it for them?

[gavotte-paradisio]

"I'm not," Logan said decisively. "I'm not good, and I'm not bad. I'm Thomas's logic: the sum of his empirical knowledge. And humanity just loves proving that knowledge can be used for great good and great evil. Gunpowder was first invented because of the firework: a medium of beauty and celebration. Next thing you know, it's an instrument of war and murder. Nuclear fusion is what powers Sol, our star, the direct source of most life, but nuclear fission cost tens of thousands of lives at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945. Modern medicine has saved so many lives, and yet too often people take their own via overdose. Knowledge isn't good or evil. It all depends on the morality of the individual and of the culture. I am not inherently Light or Dark, Core or Other, Good or Bad, but the UGLY AND BEAUTIFUL TRUTH!"

October 2, 2021

An rp response I was incredibly proud of at the time and still kinda am. Roman, Patton, and Virgil were questioning Logan as to why he was spending so much time with the Others, the situation escalated, and he crashed out.

[wherevenusholdssomeofficespace]

Phineas and Ferb as Sci Fi

If you thought I'd leave it at acknowledging the shows genre you were wrong.

Okay, so generally speaking, genre's are wide categories that overlap and are just... foundations for understanding works. They aren't boxes, and works can fit into many genre's. So A LOT of things are sci-fi while not necessarily being sci-fi.

So... Sci-Fi has it's own set of archetypes, and I think generally the thing that differentiates SCI-FI from sci-fi (that is being part of larger sci-fi discourse, and rather than just having a sci-fi elements, see Spy thrillers, which may have sci-fi elements, but isn't really the subject of this discussion) is the use of themes. Or more specifically Sci-Fi is often commentary on the world's current state of affairs and/or currently developing technologies and extrapolating it to its (sometimes logical sometimes exaggerated) conclusion.

Now, generally speaking, this isn't Phineas and Ferb or Milo, their focus is on comedy, and the ridiculous situations that arise. Their main conflicts aren't necessarily sci-fi. After all the show translates itself into other settings rather easily. (Historical, fantasy, adventure). The main conflict is an exaggerated sibling conflict, and a secret agent plot. Themes of family and battling a villain taking over the world aren't inherently sci-fi.

But I do think Phineas and Ferb makes use of a particular sci-fi theme. As in the common theme of the potential for future technologies to have potential to have both positive and negative effects on the world.

Phineas and Ferb represent positive change in the world. The benefits that come from technological developments. This is something Candace constantly fights against, Candace has many reasons for her wanting to bust her brothers, but one of them is the dangers that the technologies her brothers develop could (and often do) pose. And when things happen, she is often its victim. (Even if sometime she's also to blame herself).

Think Phineas and Ferb get busted. When they built the "Flying Car of the Future Today". Literally invoking the Sci-Fi concept of futuristic technologies that change how we live. They're careless with this technology and it crushes their house.

Granted, this is Candace's dream inside Perry's dream, but Candace and Perry are parallels here, where they are both agents attempting to stop the development of futuristic technologies. Perry, despite his use of "high tech" ultimately, for the most part, utilizes technologies that currently exist, as well as physical prowess. Same with Candace. But, ultimately, unlike Candace who is (unsuccessfully) stifling her brothers, who do create for the sake of helping people, Perry is fighting against someone who seeks to abuse developing technologies for the sake of hurting others.

Doofensmirtz, (in PnF) represents the negative. He creates technologies to take over the tri-state area. Enslave humans, cause pain and suffering them, not only to benefit himself, but simply because he wants others to hurt.

We get a variety of future's that are depended on Doof's path in life. The 2D, quantum boogaloo, AYA, and the time-travel future in MML, all highlight a potential future. In Quantum Boogaloo, the fear of progress (also more pertinently the stifling of children's freedoms but that's another discussion), leaves the tri-state area vulnerable to Doofensmirtz's abuse and leaves the community suffering under his forced changes.

In MML, Doof goes good. He actually has a positive influence on the future. He invents time travel, and is famous because of it. Doof, turns himself around and uses technologies, the same technologies, often times that he used for evil. (See him using the Chicken-Replacinator in CATU for good). These technologies are tools, able to be used for good and evil depending on the user.

Granted, bringing time travel to the masses may have brought more harm than good, as it allowed the Pistachions a chance to take over, but it also allowed Dakota to save Cavendish (or maybe it's why Cavendish died so often, either way). And Doof throughout MML uses his creations recklessly. They are intended for good, despite functionally being no different from those intended for evil, but despite intentions still cause harm when Doof isn't careful with them. It is the intersection of the positive and negative influence Doof and PnF had in PnF, harm coming from good intentions. Even good intentions aren't enough to keep developing technologies safe from misuse.

While I highly doubt any of this was a conscious decision, it's only natural when you are developing something to reiterate the themes and motifs of the wider cultural . The use of sci-fi elements immediately invokes the dangers and benefits of the progression of technology and society, and so it's natural that Phineas and Ferb would in it's own way cover it too.

[aloeverawrites]

I think some terfs see Manhood as like being a cop. Like it's something you can't reform and trying to make it positive is just sweeping problems under the carpet . They have an acab mentality. For them amab means all men are bastards.

So their only solution in their eyes is female separatism. 'Men can't be fixed so there just has to be a wall in between us.'

Trans people and non binary people threaten that because we cross over the 'wall' of gender, making the border 'unsafe' if you will. So you have to stop people from being transgender.

And it seems kind of hopeless. Like nothing can be fixed and different people just have to be segregated or closeted to keep ciswomen safe.

I think it's wrong to see manhood with an acab mentality. You can choose to be a cop, can't really choose your gender. And I think portraying demographics as inherently evil and unchangeable is quite dangerous actually, has some bad implications for minorities anyway.

I'd much rather think of Manhood as something we can change. As something we can improve and re-define around values that we care about, instead of violence. And I think that blurring the lines between men and women is a really important part of that. You can't have a solid, violent definition of manhood if the definition isn't even solid in the first place.

Previous generations and dominant cultures/religions made up the social construct of what it means to be a man. We can make up something new.

Also, saying that men are just inherently like this gives a lot of weight to the bs that was just made up. It back up their idea that this is just natural, which it isn't. Patriarchy only became a big thing when humans settled down and started farming like 10,000 years ago. Which is a long time but not most of human history.

We're not supposed to be like this.

Someone invented it, so we can uninvent it.

[impostoradult]

Can I ask something in all seriousness -

(And let me preface this by saying yes, there are a LOT of ethical issues with the training of AIs and yes, I agree AI outputs are often mediocre and they certainly shouldn't encompass the WHOLE of human output, creative or otherwise)

And having said that, I'm curious why we treat art as special in our efforts to make things in general less work?

Like, let's say you applied this logic to TRAVELING. Oh cars and trains and buses and airplanes are evil because when you use them, you're avoiding walking. Walking is clearly better because it's more work to do, therefore it's more real/virtuous/human. Or what about MATH. Is the math more real, or are you more virtuous for having done it long-form by hand, as opposed to using a calculator? Or putting the equation into Google?

What about BAKING/COOKING? Does the fact that I can just walk to my oven and turn it on (rather than having to chop wood and build a fire from scratch on my lawn) make my cooking or baking any less real/virtuous/human?

MOST human invention is about making tasks easier or less effort in some way. And suddenly we're all clutching our pearls about that, because it is being applied to creative pursuits.

And once again, this is NOT a unilateral defense of AI. There are a lot of ethical problems with both its creation and its implementation. But I think we need more critical thinking about what it is we're actually criticizing about AI, and what kinds of social dynamics we are preserving by rejecting certain uses of AI.

Hard work isn't inherently virtuous. Even creative work. Things being easy isn't inherently bad (in general, I'm of the opinion, things being easy is better than things being hard). This whole mentality of The Hard Work is What Makes it Good (or You Good) is a weirdly Calvinist/capitalist work ethic philosophy and I'm kinda surprised you all are so taken in by it all of a sudden.

[molsno]

I can actually see why some transmascs may talk about "hatred of masculinity" in a good faith (and still be wrong).

Before realizing that they were men they were probably identifying as women heavily dissatisfied with being women and probably also heavily gender non-conforming. Neither of those are considered fully acceptable by wider society, but totally accepted by feminist movement, at least here where I live. And the most prominent feminist organisations here are radfem-adjacent.

Now, saying that those organisations at large are "anti-men" or even "against masculinity in men" is wrong, considering how they tried to portray their enemies as effeminate as some kind of own. And, though I have never witnessed it myself, how straight girls who use radfem rhetoric are willing to invent new definitions of lesbianism to call their cishet boyfriends "lesbians", men for them have higher priority than lesbians at least.

Still, running into people there who did just hate men was a daily occurrence, and many more were parroting their rhetoric ("feminine energy" as some kind of fix for civilisation and so on). If some transmascs allied more with people like this, discovering that they are what they considered to be some ontological evil might have been traumatic.

Still, posing misandry as big societal problem and not fringe worldview that they internalized is silly at best (I am using misandry here as personal attitude, not system, hence no quotes). And I always assume that people who talk about it as something important are either doing it in bad faith or repeating someone's bad faith arguments without analysing it.

(Now it's up to question how many transmascs actually joined those organisations in any way, considering how for unrealised trans girl that I was any idea about how good men or masculinity are even (in not ridiculous form) was an instant "no" on all levels, but who knows)

yeah, that's pretty much my understanding of it, too. basically all transmascs who believe in transandrophobia display at least some level of internalized gender essentialism underlying their entire ideology.

and like, I get it. the feminist wave of the 2010s was so deeply entangled with radical feminism that for a good while, anyone heavily involved in the movement was exposed to the biological essentialist worldview central to radical feminism that declares that men are ontologically evil, and I have no doubt that many young, repressed trans people at the time internalized that idea to an extent. I certainly did, and it only amplified my dysphoria as a teenager. it was traumatizing to me, and I can completely understand why it would be traumatizing to transmascs to come to terms with the fact that they were something they had always believed was inherently bad.

it's just like you said though, it's a mistake to frame misandry as a society wide issue when really it's a very small minority of people. but a lot of trans men never question or challenge the worldview they developed in their youth, so when they start getting read as men when they're adults and inevitably face transphobia, they start attributing it to a societal hatred of masculinity instead of recognizing that the actual cause of their oppression is a society that seeks to protect the concept of the immutable gender binary that enables the patriarchal hierarchy of power at all costs.

I don't really have any sympathy for them, though. like yeah, it sucks to be made to feel like you should hate yourself just for existing, but like, that isn't unique to them. the gender essentialism so many of them have internalized is a big reason a lot of transandrophobia truthers start aligning themselves with terfs, and I don't think I need to tell you how I feel about that. 😑 they have an alternative, they can just reevaluate their beliefs until they come to realize that man and woman are completely neutral categories entirely devoid of value judgment and don't say anything meaningful about any given person other than what they like to be called. I'll admit from experience that accepting that truth can be difficult but it's not impossible, and challenging your worldview is something you're going to have to do a lot in life if you actually want to meaningfully change how you interact with people and the world around you.

but why do that when they can demand trans women bend over backwards to appease them? it must feel good to get a taste of that male privilege when a few trans women are actually self-hating enough to listen to them. that is, at least until they get too much backlash from the rest of us who have enough self esteem to stand up for ourselves and they recede into the open arms of terfs for comfort from the mean trannies.

[rpmemesbyarat]

RP Meme from Netflix's "A Series of Unfortunate Events: A Bad Beginning: Part Two"

I'm sorry to say that the alleged entertainment you are watching is extremely unpleasant.

From the beginning of this miserable tale to the last melancholy scene, I cannot think of a single line, a single word, that does not chill me to my deepest bones.

"Why?" you may ask.

Do you know what the question I'm asked the most is?

Will you please leave the premises?

Why do I do it?

Why respond to the siren song that the Spanish call 'El Theater'?"

For fame and fortune?

For the costumes!

Where are the costumes?

Stay in the car.

Well, we've got to reach them. Try Peru.

I'm keeping an eye on things best I can

I present it to you now in the hopes that the police inspectors, concerned citizens and television executives might finally leave me alone.

I have an appointment for a haircut right now.

Well, in that case, we're going to need a map of the city.

You'll never get away with this.

I already did get away with it.

Put some elbow grease into it!

Who knows what would happen to us on the street?

At least here we have a roof over our head.

Can I warm that up for you? And also give you some very bad news?

When I was a little boy, I would have given my eyeteeth to be raised by an actor.

I have terrible friends.

It sounds like Latin.

Now, I'm sorry if I have to usher you out posthaste, but I've got work to do.

I'll have my new secretary give you a ride home as soon as he's finished typing up that report.

Shall I let them off the hook?

I spent all morning making these cupcakes for you.

They're store bought!

Aren't raspberries delicious?

I'm afraid I may have acted a bit standoffish.

I want you to participate in my next play.

It tells the story of a very handsome and good-looking man, played by me.

A pretty girl like you shouldn't be working backstage.

It's a very important role

What did you call me?

I'm not sure I'm talented enough to perform professionally.

I would prefer it if you participate voluntarily

The point is, I can order you to participate, and you must obey.

I can't stand looking at you anymore.

Killing us will do him no good.

I have never been married myself.

Are you here to continue your research?

I have quite the interest in theater, you know.

I would give up every last wig just to wear a costume.

I'm actually considering a career in law. I find those books quite fascinating.

There are countless types of books in this world, which makes good sense because there are countless types of people.

[NAME], what's happened to your face?

No, no, no, it should be delicate! Fetching!

I just think, even in changing context, that marriage is an inherently patriarchal construction

Are you leaving?

Oh, there we go, sweet girl.

Does that mean what I think it means?

It means you're going to be a star.

You have got the star quality necessary for a small walk-on role

Now, you can see it.

It's a very important part, although you won't be listed in the program.

All my life I wanted to be a bride

It's almost too good to be true.

Spend some time with your new father.

Seize the children!

I have three kinds of butter cream icing here for you to sample. One's vanilla, one has a hint of nutmeg and the other's a little lemony.

I told you never to say that word.

We'll order takeout.

Let me eat cake.

You can't just keep us in here.

What do you think will happen to you then?

I'm gonna stay up all night with a book.

The book was not at all interesting. The book was long and difficult.

What are you doing here? You're supposed to be in your room.

I was in my room all night, and I know what you're up to.

Me? I'm just having my morning coffee

If you use fancy-pants words first thing in the morning,

you're going to end up a very lonely man.

I figured out your scheme.

You don't know the difference between figuratively and literally, do you?

I'm leaping in the air because I'm very happy.

I'm so happy I could jump for joy, but I'm saving my energy for other matters.

This play won't be pretend. It'll be real and legally binding.

A man like me can acquire any number of beautiful women

What's in it for me?

Can you name me a language that was spoken by ancient Romans and is still spoken by very irritating people today?

Whatever will we do?

I guess that proves reading really is fundamental.

But I'm not old enough to get married.

It certainly is so strange to find a child missing, and one so small, so helpless.

When did you see her last?

Did you hear that? It came from outside.

Oh, you're not looking in the right place.

Oh, don't look so down.

Let her go. She's done nothing to you.

Please, she's just a baby.

Just don't harm her.

I would never, ever marry you.

Any animal owner will tell you that a stubborn mule will move toward the carrot because it wants the reward of food and away from the stick because it wants to avoid the punishment of rump pain.

Would it be so terrible to be my bride, to live in my house for the rest of your life?

You're a terrible man.

I may be a terrible man, but I have concocted a foolproof way of getting your fortune.

What have you done?

I wish I had an inventor here.

You came.

You sent for me.

Things are disastrous. Everything's gone wrong.

What went wrong?

Why would anyone listen to a consultant?

Are you free Friday night to attend the theater?

But what shall we do until then?

Could you cut these ropes for me?

You should get some sleep.

It's my turn.

I didn't help us.

You just didn't finish the job.

Let me keep my promise.

Having a brilliant idea isn't as easy as turning on a light.

But just as a single bulb can illuminate even the most depressing of rooms, the right idea can shed light on a depressing situation.

It's so wonderful that, in addition to your many talents, you have a marvelous eye for fashion.

Tell me if this is too much.

How pleasant that you could join us.

What are you gonna do with me?

It was a grappling hook.

I understand she's yours.

I'm not his bride.

You know, some people say that the hardest job in the world is raising a child.

I'll touch whatever I want.

What happened? Why are we up here?

It's so high. You must have been terrified.

I'm sorry it didn't work.

The invention worked fine. I just got caught.

You're gonna need to flip it a couple of times, like, okay?

And don't touch the baby!

Do you think you could invent something to help us escape?

I am certain that over the course of your own life, you have noticed that certain rooms reflect the personalities of the occupants.

If we had kerosene, we could make Molotov cocktails with those old wine bottles.

What are Molotov cocktails?

They're small bombs. If we throw them out the window, we could attract attention.

It's time for the big event.

Taking the role of a handsome man is certainly a brave choice.

Is it a stretch for you?

I think live theater is a much more powerful medium

than, say, streaming television.

Evil plot?

The wedding will be around 10 PM, followed by champagne toasts, reception with cake and finger food, then the after-party at the Mexican place.

All my anxieties are put to rest.

Don't distract me with idle chatter.

Get it absolutely right.

Change of plans. Sit here. Don't distract her.

Don't suppose you know how to play poker.

Would you like to deal?

I am very handsome, but I am only one man.

He's so handsome.

If I can't have him, my heart will literally break.

That can't be true!

But that piece of paper's not an official document.

I think you'll see that it is figuratively real.

I'm afraid this marriage is entirely binding.

This is absolutely horrendous. I won't allow it!

I'm afraid there's nothing you can do.

You were easily tricked!

It was child's play, winning this fortune.

You promised to let her go!

You idiot! What are you doing?

So, you escaped, you little dishrag.

Well, that doesn't count.

You're just being a sore loser and trying to ruin my special day.

You should never be afraid to admit that you don't know something.

This is a very complicated case.

It would take a formidable legal scholar to solve it.

It was thoroughly impressive and utterly convincing.

I'm even considering firing your associate

I was kidnapped

I'll get my hands on your fortune if it's the last thing I do.

You have to capture him! You have to go after him!

You let the authorities worry about that.

Sorry, but the children must come with me.

Some things in life are difficult to understand, even after years and years of thinking about them while wandering alone through desolate landscapes, usually during the off-season.

The world is quiet here.

As with so many unfortunate events in life, just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't so.

Things are worse than we thought.

Then we don't have a moment to lose.

What's a woman like you building in a place like this?

Leave no stone unturned.

[ittybittytatertot]

Hello! I have a question about being nonbinary? If I'm reading a nonbinary character in a book I'm not sure how to imagine them? Like what form would ideally pop into my mind if I want to respect the identity? I don't want to accidentally be disrespectful and then turn around and make OCs who reflect my ignorance. Do I ignore secondary sex characteristics or focus on androgyny? I hope this isn't inappropriate or unfair to ask this of you. I'm sorry if it is and I'll apologize again if it is.

Hi Anon! I can tell from your questions that you’re thinking deeply and genuinely trying to learn and be respectful. Thank you for that!

If I may start my answer with a question of my own:

When reading a woman character or a man character in a book, how do you imagine them? Do all the women look the same, as do all the men?

Perhaps that is an unfair question. After all, we’ve been taught to have a general concept for what “man” and “woman” look like even if many characters go against these ideas in some way. Most people don’t have even a basic template for nonbinary people, so I understand how you could be wondering where to even start.

The truthful answer is, there is no ideal/default nonbinary form. And most nonbinary people like it that way and don’t want any one look to become the “nonbinary look”.

However, that answer, true as it is, doesn’t offer you much helpful direction, does it? Still, I doubt you need me to tell you to simply imagine the character how the author describes them. Plus, that wouldn’t be addressing your worry about accidentally being disrespectful or creating characters that reflect a knowledge/experience gap.

Rather than giving you a list of Do’s and Don’t’s, I’d much rather be informative about common myths and tropes, so you can challenge your own assumptions and make your own decisions about nonbinary characters.

The following are common harmful myths real life nonbinary people have to contend with on a day to day basis. (If you have any questions about how these are false/harmful, I’m happy to follow up in another post).

Nonbinary people are all AFAB, never AMAB

Nonbinary people are just women trying to escape misogyny

Nonbinary people are intersex

Nonbinary is the third gender

Nonbinary is only a lack of gender

Nonbinary people have to be androgynous (and skinny and white)

Nonbinary people have to use they/them pronouns

Nonbinary people are all confused children

Nonbinary is an internet invention

And while nonbinary people rarely show up in media, there are still a few tropes that have developed from their occasional appearances.

Note, I am separating the media tropes from the harmful myths because tropes aren’t inherently bad. A lot of it depends on execution and personal taste. Not all nonbinary people agree on what’s best.

Nonbinary A.I./Robot/Alien

Nonbinary Magical Infinite Entity

Man and Woman Merged

Genderfluid Shapeshifter

Evil Nonbinary

Young, Skinny, White Androgyne

In my opinion, these tropes mostly go wrong when implying nonbinary people aren’t real or human, that their bodies inherently gender them or only certain bodies can be nonbinary, or that gender nonconformity makes them evil.

(Also, there’s a trope that’s kind of a nonbinary trope but it’s really more of a transmisogynistic trope: The Genderfluid Transfemme Caricature. Basically, this is a character who falls into a bunch of transmisogynistic stereotypes, but the story/creator tries to excuse that harm by claiming they’re genderfluid, not a trans woman.)

Outside of media, nonbinary people are real and human. We can look like anyone, come from anywhere, and do anything. There’s no one right answer for how to portray nonbinary people. But I think the best first step is to approach each nonbinary character as an individual rather than a representative of all nonbinary identities.

For references on different nonbinary looks, check out this portrait series by photographer Jackson Akitt: https://www.instagram.com/nonbinaryportraits/?hl=en

And here’s an article on non-binary celebrities (by no means a complete list!) https://www.insider.com/9-celebrities-who-identify-as-gender-non-binary-2019-6#liv-hewson-would-love-to-play-a-non-binary-person-13

[mayasaura]

Bruh. Physical touch is clearly established as working around the lyctoral blindness.

It doesn't get rid of it entirely, but it does negate it to the point that Harrow can closely examine the composition of Ianthe's jawbone, and Mercy can figure out what happened to Harrow's brain:

And. Look. I know how frustrating it is to see people randomly assigning bizzare evil motives to John because he's the Bad Guy, but give me at least a smidge of credit here for past performance. I've been pretty active on the "John Gaius isn't inherently evil" train. I have defended this motherfucker right and left from uncharitable interpretations, because I believe the whole point of him is that he's a tragedy. His deep love for his home and passion for justice twisted by rage and bitterness until the same things that made him a hero are now what define him as a villian.

But I'm gonna push back on some of your evaluation of him. He is, in fact, a very smart man. People of mediocre intelligence do not get grant projects to invent new methods of cryogenic preservation. The guy next door usually has not ruled the same intergalactic empire for ten thousand years without ever having lost control of it. I don't care how much he delegates, he'd been leading the army from the flagship for eighty years. He is a politician, and a good one.

And as for the gaslighting, I know that's a serious accusation and it often gets thrown around lightly, but I meant it. Gaslighting isn't "lying to someone", it's the long-term psychological manipulation of someone to doubt the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories, and then using that uncertainty to make them accept someone else's reality and foster dependance. While lying is by far the most common way to do that, it's not actually necessary to the definition. The book built up to this blatant example over time with John undermining Harrow's reality in more subtle ways, like acting as if repeated maulings and attempts on her life were an unfortunate inconvenience to be tolerated when she was begging for his help. He straight up does not engage with her in a way that respects her perspective or needs. Saying here that her memory is point-blank wrong, that she didn't do something she clearly remembers doing and he was not even present for, something that changed the course of her entire life, is gaslighting by its true definiton. He didn't entertain for a moment that she might know what she was talking about. He rejected her reality regarding her memories of her own life experiences and substituted his own.

Gaslighting typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, and uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability. Let's take a look at the effect this conversation has on Harrow, to see if that checks out. These are all taken from the end of that scene, and the paragraph immediately following, starting the next chapter:

Confusion, loss of confidence, her already tenuous faith in her ability to discern reality obliterated. The fact that Harrow was already unstable at this point is not a defense for John. Psychosis and her damaged brain made Harrow vulnerable, as these things often do in reality. Even if he fully believes it himself, it is still manipulation for John to ask her to accept his supposition of what might have happened over her own memory of what she experienced.

John Gaius is just some guy, and that's important to understanding him, but that doesn't mean he isn't capable of manipulation. Most people who hurt other people are just some guy. You're right, he could be any one of us, and part of the point of that is that under the right circumstances, any one of us is capable of abuse.

You do have a point that he didn't touch her head in chapter two. I'm making an assumption there that John's ability to percieve past whatever's up with the lyctoral blindness is greater than Harrow or Mercy's. I'm basing that on how, when he described his inability to see Harrow on a metaphysical level, he says he can't see detail rather than saying he can't see her at all. But yeah, that is an assumption and there's definitely room for argument.

So I noticed something in Harrow the Ninth. In chapter two, when John is trying to console Harrow over having lost Gideon, he puts his hands on her shoulders, and he says “Gideon Nav did not die for nothing.”

Harrow feels “a hot whistle of pain run down [her] temporal bone,” which is, we know now, Harrow having a stroke as her skull alters her brain so that she hears him say ‘Ortus Nigenad’ instead. And she replies to him in kind, using Ortus’ name. So the interesting bit is John’s reaction, look:

ALT

He had his hands on her shoulders the whole time. Physical touch negates lyctoral blindness, and she had a stroke while he was touching her. That look on his face. Is he working out an emotionally taxing anagram, or is he taking a good look at her and working out what the hell just happened? Then he says Gideon’s name again, like he’s running a test, and Harrow has another stroke. That’s exactly the same test Mercy performed to figure out what Harrow did to her brain in chapter twenty-nine.

He knows. He’s known about the lobotomy since chapter two. He thinks she did it to forget her grief and guilt, and he thinks he understands.

Which means when he 'notices’ the lobotomy in this scene:

ALT

He’s not really noticing it for the first time at all. He’s calling attention to it. He’s just told Harrow that she didn’t open the Tomb, that she’s wrong about the events of her own life, and then he deliberately 'discovers’ and points out her brain damage to seal the deal.

John Gaius uses: Gaslight! It’s super effective.

[dent-de-leon]

You can give an opinion without being an arsehole, mate. Also, I just read that 'broganes' was headcanoned by an Asian, so are they racist too? I'm not 'trying to win an argument', I'm genuinely confused. I've searched for it on here, but I can only find people arguing against it being racist. Most people I've seen who think of them as siblings isn't because they 'look similar' (which they don't), but because of how they act.

Okay, let’s break this down. First off, I know who the first person that came up with the bro/ganes headcanon was. I’ve been in this fandom a long time, practically since the show aired, and I honestly have a better understanding of fandom trends than a lot of other people since I saw it all firsthand right from the beginning. So, again–I know who the first person that came up with the term was. Yes, they were Asian. And I also know that it was 1) intended to be a “fun AU” for them based off their own personal experiences with their sibling, that they based it off that, and 2) it was meant to be an AU, not canon–which is how many antis took it–and it was also never meant to bash other ships or trivialize Shiro and Keith’s relationship. 

It was a fun personal project for them, and it wasn’t meant to be used as a tool to harass others. Guess what happened anyway. Just guess. Bro/ganes might have started out as something innocuous and innocent, but antis clung to it and things very quickly went off the rails. And just because some Asian fans liked the idea, you literally cannot change the fact that I’ve heard multiple others express their concerns on just why the subject was so upsetting for them. You cannot separate this term from the inherently racist connotations built up and emphasized by antis over the years. You cannot. The person who invented bro/ganes didn’t mean for it to get out of hand and be used by antis to hurt others like that, so please don’t try to play them like some kind of trump card or drag their name through the mud. 

And if you want to see firsthand just how detrimental bro/ganes is, Barlee very innocently posted an artwork of Shiro and Keith calling them “bros.” Antis went wild over it, and she then deleted the comments. People were like, “hey, why’d she delete the comments?” And antis started making up bullshit like, “oh, she probably did it because evil shaladins were bothering her, because they were upset about bro/gans!!” And then Barlee literally made a post saying that, actually, she deleted it because she didn’t want antis harassing shaladins and running away with the whole bro/ganes bullshit like they literally always do. When you have fans literally harassing the staff over this nonsense, it’s gone too fucking far:

Copying and pasting a brief history of bro/ganes here from my other post in case you didn’t see it:

I’m not sure how many of you were around for this, but I was here well before season 2. And the bro/ganes crap absolutely predates that (BOM) line. By a lot. I’m talking like practically the beginning. They’ve literally always been like this. Hunk saying the other paladins are his brothers convieniently never gets mentioned, but antis zeroed in on that one out of context line, because that’s how they are. They were ready for any scrap that they could wave in our faces and scream about like children somehow “proving” their nonexistent point.

And if you’re saying there’s weight to the line with Keith and Shiro, then you must also acknowledge there was considerable weight to Allura’s words when she called Keith and the other paladins her family. That was a heavy scene, there’s no way around it. It’s even followed by this embrace and words of affirmation. And yet, how interesting antis fixated on one scene with Keith and found family but not the other.

The facts are these–antis have always been uncomfortable with Shiro and Keith being so close. Because the easy intimacy there felt very tangible and real. Because it wasn’t k/l. I was there when the first trailer for season 2 came out, the one with Shiro calling out for Keith at the end. The one where Shiro tells Keith to lead Voltron. Do you know what antis were saying at the time? They were pissed that Keith and Shiro were so close and it would be a “sheith season.” We’re talking before this thing even aired. How dare Keith care so much about Shiro. Where was Lance? The nerve. 

People literally said they hoped Shiro would die because then sheith could never happen. I can’t even begin describe the very visceral hatred that people had for his character at this time–because Keith had the audacity to careabout Shiro, and it drove them fucking wild. As part of some mass delusion, people arbitrarily claimed it would be a “choice” between Lance or Shiro dying–because Lan/gst and everything must be about Lance. And there were posts and posts of people saying that they would throw Shiro off a cliff for Lance’s sake in a heartbeat and how if it’s between them they hope Shiro gets killed. 

People kept trying to rationalize it by insisting the only canonically mentally ill character needed to die because he was too traumatized to lead, because he wasn’t good enough for the team. He had to step down and give Lance his time. It wasn’t until antis had that one out of context BOM line to latch onto that they finally breathed a sigh of relief and went, “look, look bro/ganes is canon!!! We’re safe!!!” And suddenly no one said he had to die right away. In their mind, sheith was “dead,” and that was just as good as killing Shiro. It’s pretty sick. 

The bottom line is this–people have always hated sheith’s relationship and have been frantically looking for ways to undermine it. Bro/ganes–even right at the start–very quickly turned into fans going all conspiracy theory, making very racist assumptions without any evidence to back it up. “They look similar, they must be related!” “Keith’s last name in GoLion was Kogane, which sounds like Shirogane!! So they’re related!!” Is that how last names work? No, not in the fucking least. Did they neglect to mention Lance’s was Kurogane? Absolutely. 

Anyway, moving on–“They’re both Asian, so obviously, they’re brothers!! That’s why they’re so close, it all makes sense!!” You know what else is pretty upsetting to me? That you have tons of teenage girls fetishizing the k/l rivalry–because someone harassing another guy is apparently hot–but then immediately showing disgust when you have two guys actually expressing mutual love and support. 

The fact is, they used bro/ganes as an excuse to make Shiro and Keith’s relationship more “palatable” because they were personally uncomfortable seeing two guys so close, so obviously open and affectionate. And not in a way that was ever staged as fan service, not in a way with juvenile love/hate “sexual tension” played up to titillate an outside audience. Instead, Shiro and Keith’s interactions are very much heartfelt and organic. Interesting how apparently more guys like she/ith than k/l. 

Anyway, the most striking thing of all here is you keep saying I’m giving shallow reasons and that “it’s just racist because I say so,” like…you’re literally missing the entire point here, which is that, it doesn’t fucking matter what I think. This isn’t about you winning an argument with me. I cannot and I can never decide what’s racist to actual Asian fans, this is about their feelings on the matter, not mine. And if you don’t acknowledge that this is a term that’s been steeped in racist connotations and used to harass others for months and months now, then I literally don’t know what to tell you. Also, “You can give your opinions without being an asshole.” You already called me a dick, mate. You don’t have to pretend to be polite now, it’s okay. 

This isn’t an issue I’ll ever budge on, so I really don’t know what you’re expecting here. But it’s not about me, it’s never been about me and my feelings. You can open up and listen to others who are personally affected by the matter. Please understand these are my final thoughts on the subject, and nothing you can say will change it for me. 

[scourgethewhorehog]

long post abt social spaces specifically online and offline, unrelated to any recent events so don't put words in my mouth it just is part of me reflecting on trauma shit+ journaling + understanding why i lacked boundaries for so long and trying to sympathize with why other people may Also lack boundaries even if it doesnt , excuse certain shit

man does anyone else realize that condemning people as evil or dismissing them or insisting they are inherently bad to continue existence in a way they feel doesnt align to their worldview for things that dont actually cause harm on other people and are actually decent outlets to redirect traumatic experiences n passing judgement on them to the point theyre isolated to an incredibly small group of people to seek acceptance actually makes everyone worse off

and makes people question themselves and their morals to the point they eventually give up on trying to be a good person and actual bad people use this to infiltrate these groups of rejected traumatized people because of this us vs them mentality that comes from being rejected by wider society both by virtue of a lot of these ppl experiencing irl oppression 98% of the time and also have to deal from rejection even from any support group they may have to help them deal with very real life issues because everyone is inventing online problems and reasons to ostracize people more for like what for power for feeling like theyre better themselves in the face of all they also face in real life...

anyways this is just me thinking of how many people i see from a distance that have so much common ground with me and otherwise would be fine to be around but would hate me for being like a dirty evil queer with the kind of autism that isnt cute enough for tiktok who doesnt understand social cues or having the wrong kind of system or too bizarre of an identity as it is so when someone who comes along that checks so many of the boxes of just at least not fucking hating you you put up with So much shit. and thats what lead to like half of the abusive close relationships we've been in babey!

and when you talk to people outside of these circles, trying to get away from all the people who hurt you in them, there is subtle victim blaming, recovery spaces admonish you for having been in these spaces in the first place, insisting if you hadnt been who youve been you wouldnt be around these Inherently Bad people....

it doesnt help that in real life we did Everything right to not be the Bad Child, never dyed our hair until recently when we had enough, and never spoke out and paid all our bills on time and most gay people are disgusting perverts but youre quiet enough and never come out to your parents friends and never are too loud about it even if youre dying inside and want to cry when you have to say your partner is just your friend whose coming over because its a death sentence, god forbid we get into gender because even if we're trans in the end its just some sort of dykefag anyways and nothing gets acknowledged except the same imagined scenario of like. being a dirty depraved sex pervert even if you struggle to touch other people and are terrified to tell anyone about that.

being an assumed danger to other people no matter how harmless you are sucks. its like, i come online to all these people where, at surface level expression, maybe would like me, because physically everyone near me wouldn't if i was half honest, but i'm still too much for them too now and i'm left feeling exactly like i do day to day. the internet isn't really escapism anymore its the same shit with a new coat of paint. i go through life thinking these people are good people and would be cool in any other circumstance, and i wish them the best, but the minute i am me i am a problem and something is wrong and all the kindness and good will they have and their favorite dessert and birthday and the things i recognize of them and love and care about wont matter anymore because i stopped being a person to them, and it happens to me online now too! and that sort of blows but at least i actually have real friends now who are like family and ill count my blessings on that.

[minisoc]

why do many MLs disagree with MLM? like do they just dislike mao (i noticed he isn't mentioned in your faq) or think his contributions are irrelevant? contradictions theory, mass line, cultural revolution all seem pretty important imo? but idk.

we certainly do not dislike mao; on the contrary, if "maoists" appreciated his contributions better they would not be maoists. but mao did not invent the concepts of contradictions or the mass line, he merely applied them to his conditions. mao was a marxist leninist and produced marxist leninist theory.

but mao is really not the focus of the disagreement. if you've studied mao's contributions and can pin down a given maoist on some point they're wrong about, they will simply declare "maoism isn't limited to mao" and continue on in whatever error. the key component that causes conflict between MLs and maoists is that the latter copy the language of the former but use it to demonize actual socialist states, which is in the interests of empire. they are technically left communists, but practically speaking social imperialists and social fascists.

I honestly get along better with most anarchists who will tell you in plain language they fear some sort of ML betrayal or think states are inherently evil, these are operating honestly off of emotion and you can find a common ground. the maoists play act at all times and will confidently declare nonsense (China is an imperialist superpower!), declare that this nonsense is in solidarity with the oppressed, and call you a dengite dogmato-revisionist for disagreeing. there's nothing even to be said at this point, as with any trot the best thing you can do is to ignore them